World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
Check out this weapon system
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 02:28 PM UTC
Russian low altitude troop 'eraser' Known as the "Fire Hedgehog" consisted of 88 machine guns. A/C would sweep over concentrations of troops, open the bomb bay doors and let all hell break loose below them.
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 03:33 PM UTC
Interesting idea.
Any idea what aircraft they put it in?
Any idea what aircraft they put it in?
vanize
Texas, United States
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 06:54 PM UTC
holy moly!
looks like the tail unit of a Pe2?
looks like the tail unit of a Pe2?
sdk10159
Oregon, United States
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 556 posts
AeroScale: 11 posts
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 556 posts
AeroScale: 11 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 09:26 PM UTC
I believe it was a TU-2
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 09:15 PM UTC
Very interesting photo. I have never seen that before. Looks a bit insane to me - I would not like to be the loader in that bomb bay.
There must be a better way to get the same effect by using fragmentation bombs or fewer but faster firing belt fed machine guns.
Thanks for sharing
There must be a better way to get the same effect by using fragmentation bombs or fewer but faster firing belt fed machine guns.
Thanks for sharing
JollyRoger
Istanbul, Turkey / Türkçe
Joined: December 22, 2004
KitMaker: 1,241 posts
AeroScale: 616 posts
Joined: December 22, 2004
KitMaker: 1,241 posts
AeroScale: 616 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 10:19 PM UTC
There is. It is called AC-130(or 119 or 47):] This is just a rather older version:P Does anyone know, is this thing realy used?
CaptainA
Indiana, United States
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,117 posts
AeroScale: 2,270 posts
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,117 posts
AeroScale: 2,270 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 07:31 AM UTC
Just imagine the recoil. After a 10 second burst, the aircraft would probably gain 1000 feet in altitude.
Comrade mechanic-private, your mission is to bore-sight this aircraft. Have it ready in two hours.
Comrade mechanic-private, your mission is to bore-sight this aircraft. Have it ready in two hours.
BorisS
New York, United States
Joined: October 07, 2007
KitMaker: 144 posts
AeroScale: 26 posts
Joined: October 07, 2007
KitMaker: 144 posts
AeroScale: 26 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 09:55 AM UTC
PPSh-s though? Why? One would think they would mount a better weapon than a bunch of PPShs.
Not that they're bad, just not a good choice for something like this.
Shouldn't be something a plane can't handle. These are SMGs after all.
The AT variants of the JU 88 didn't seem to have to big a problem handling the cannon mounted on them.
Now imagine having to reload all those. 72 rounds a mag isn't very much for this purpose.
I think it's a useless idea though. What's the point of having 88 of them? 3 or 4 high ROF MGs would prove just as effective. No difference between hitting a person with 5 bullets or 47 either way they're dead. Besides they all seem to be firing into the same general area, once again, overkill. Also when an enemy ground attack plane flies so low overhead, it's rare that troops will stand in such high concentration for something like this to have a purpose.
Not that they're bad, just not a good choice for something like this.
Quoted Text
Just imagine the recoil.
Shouldn't be something a plane can't handle. These are SMGs after all.
The AT variants of the JU 88 didn't seem to have to big a problem handling the cannon mounted on them.
Now imagine having to reload all those. 72 rounds a mag isn't very much for this purpose.
I think it's a useless idea though. What's the point of having 88 of them? 3 or 4 high ROF MGs would prove just as effective. No difference between hitting a person with 5 bullets or 47 either way they're dead. Besides they all seem to be firing into the same general area, once again, overkill. Also when an enemy ground attack plane flies so low overhead, it's rare that troops will stand in such high concentration for something like this to have a purpose.
calvin2000
Colorado, United States
Joined: July 25, 2007
KitMaker: 886 posts
AeroScale: 332 posts
Joined: July 25, 2007
KitMaker: 886 posts
AeroScale: 332 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 01:53 PM UTC
and a Bomb for emphasis
karljungblut
Mississippi, United States
Joined: April 29, 2005
KitMaker: 71 posts
AeroScale: 11 posts
Joined: April 29, 2005
KitMaker: 71 posts
AeroScale: 11 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 02:51 PM UTC
The BAC Canberra / B-57also carried a a ventral gun pac but with four 20 mm cannons
Tarok
Victoria, Australia
Joined: July 28, 2004
KitMaker: 10,889 posts
AeroScale: 174 posts
Joined: July 28, 2004
KitMaker: 10,889 posts
AeroScale: 174 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 06:15 PM UTC
Hectic!
Was this ever used in combat? Or was it merely experimental?
Was this ever used in combat? Or was it merely experimental?
Hollowpoint
Kansas, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
AeroScale: 9 posts
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
AeroScale: 9 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 06:39 PM UTC
PROPAGANDA, folks. This was probably not meant as an operational weapon. If it was, it likely failed on its first use, like many Soviet "super weapons."